Private Equity and Creative Destruction
Want to see what America would look like without private equity? Move to Detroit and contemplate the ruins of a city ruined by the placid conformity of auto industry executives. The economic impact of the corporate takeover business can’t be measured by the outcome of takeovers as such. Private equity transformed the way American business thought about the world. If managers did a lousy job, outside investors could raise money (a lot of it from trade union pension funds as well as university endowments) and kick them out.
Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry should be ashamed of themselves for bean-counting Bain Capital’s record on job creation. Any investment firm operating over decades of rapid employment growth will be able to show that the companies it bought added jobs over time. That’s what the academic studies on private equity show in any event, as Jordan Weissmann reports at The Atlantic. More relevant is the alternative. We’ve been there, done that, and don’t want to do it again. Corporate America in the 1950s and 1960s coasted on the postwar monopoly enjoyed by American companies after the destruction of European and Japanese industries. Detroit in the late 1960s had African-American neighborhoods stretching for miles with well-kept single-family homes and manicured lawns; by the end of the 1970s it had turned into a moonscape. The rust belt still hasn’t recovered from the laziness of American capital a generation ago.
Private equity takes money from institutional investors who otherwise would passively invest in public securities, and gives them the chance to exercise direct ownership of companies whose management fails to exploit their potential. It creates competition where no competition existed before. As in every business, there are ten wannabees for every visionary. A lot of the success of private equity derives from the fact that equity values rose steadily from1983 through 2000, and anyone who had a chance to own equity with borrowed money did exceptionally well. One can argue that many of the players who got rich during the boom years simply rode the big wave. (Bain Capital, though, was one of the first in, and throughout one of the smartest, and one of the least reckless about using excess leverage.)
But all that is beside the point. The private equity business as a whole, and the associated capital market innovations that supported it (high-yield bonds, for example), forced American businesses to think competitively. One of the results is that large American businesses are leaner and more efficient than ever before — with the result that big companies actually are creating most of the jobs out there.
The table below is taken from Standard and Poor’s website. It calculates employment growth among the S&P 500 companies, showing that overall employment in the country’s biggest companies grew by more than 10% during 2010, while overall employment stagnated. The nimbleness of corporate America — the fact that the collapse of the housing market and the household balance sheet did not push the U.S. into a new Great Depression — is the result of the Reagan Revolution and the unfettered capitalism it let loose on the world.
From the standpoint of individual employees whose lives may be disrupted by corporate reorganizations, none of this is pleasant. And it doesn’t seem fair that a Harvard type in suspenders and a pink shirt should make millions by spurring managers to think smarter and employees to work harder. Of course it isn’t fair: it’s capitalism. Entrepreneurs aren’t made in the image of Mother Teresa. More often than not they are obsessive about succeeding to compensate for other insecurities. I’ve known a lot of great entrepreneurs, and not one of them was what you would call a balanced personality. Mitt Romney seems like much too nice a fellow for this line of work.
I’ve rarely encountered a politico like Gingrich. On the one side one finds someone who can get things done (e.g. welfare reform) at the cost of ruffling more than a few feathers; telling uncomfortable truths (Palestinians as “invented”) in the face of an inclination to play “pretend”; and putting the media in their place (challenging Steph for wasting debate time on the non-issue of contraception). On the other side, he talks of summoning sitting judges to explain their decisions, violates his stated commitment to Reagan’s “11th commandment” by calling his challenger a liar, then spouts talk of “vulture capitalists” that could only warm the heart of some Occupy Wall Street fool.
At the least, one would expect a “historian” not only to be more even tempered, but to consider the lessons of “unintended consequences”, which can stem from both words and actions.
The thing which ought to have killed Gingrich’s campaign was his support for Freddie Mac, the sub prime socialist mortgage scheme which created the housing bubble and the banking crisis which was the impetus for Dodd-Frank and the cause of this moribund economy. Gingrich then lied about his role claiming he was paid as an historian for that toxic organization. Gingrich is not an economic conservative. His attacks on venture capitalism are but the latest evidence of his core beliefs.
Something about the Mote in One’s Eye….. http://www.redstate.com/williamjameson/2012/01/10/romney-benefited-from-a-10-million-federal-bailout/
Opps, some romney be punked.
Excerpt from your linked site. It wasn’t a bailout.
The facts of the Bain & Co. turnaround are a little more complicated, but a Boston Globe report from 1994 confirms that Bain saw several million dollars in loans forgiven by the FDIC, which had taken over Bain’s failed creditor, the Bank of New England.
Romney aides pushed back strongly on the Democratic charge that Bain & Co. received anything like a TARP-style “bailout.” While the FDIC is a government agency, it is funded by deposit insurance payments rather than taxes. The agency agreed to reduce Bain & Co.’s liability to the Bank of New England, but didn’t pump new funds into the flagging firm. Other Bain creditors also took a haircut in order to avert the company’s collapse.
Seriously? You’re pulling a Clinton what is “IS”.
Wozers.
Dude the “Is” defense was one of the most ridiculous, hilariously brilliant defenses ever. I mean the balls of that man to say that s- lol! It’s second only to the chewbacca defense.
The agency agreed to reduce Bain & Co.’s liability to the Bank of New England,
In plain english they did a principal write down on Bain’s debt.
How many people got the principal on their mortgages written down when originating entity failed? Answer – none.
Mitt & Bain are fine examples of crony capitalism. Mitt’s success was largely driven by government subsidies and playing an overly complex regulatory system. How exactly does that translate into usable knowledge for a president?
Newt and Gingrich sure succeeded in their mission to implant liberal talking points into the soft heads of some people. That’s good in my books. Let’s sort out right now who’s really a conservative and who isn’t. If you believe like Obama does that private equity firms like Bain are “corporate raiders” then vote for him.
Except Romney wasn’t with Bain & Co. in 1994. He had returned to Bain Capital by then, a different company.
Bain & Co. is the consulting firm.
Bain Capital was spun out in 1984, and led by Romney.
Romney returned to Bain & Co. Jan 91- Dec 92
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney
1. Supreme Court judges sit only having been approved of by Congress. Their “right” of judicial review is nowhere explicit in the Constitution. Their assertion of that “right” in Marbury vs.Madison alarmed the anti-federalist faction of that day, of whom Thomas Jefferson himself, author of the Declaration, and James Madison, author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were the leading champions. The idea that a small group of men, not accountable to the people, can nullify laws passed by the people’s representatives without any recourse by those representatives, should be troubling to anyone who is jealous of his sovereignty. Newt Gingrich knows his history.
2. Romney violated the eleventh commandment first and now he is getting some of his own medicine. If you don’t like Newt for doing it, you should loathe Romney for bringing this campaign down to that level to begin with.
3. I see by your moniker that you are from our nation’s capital, so I can understand how you are not aware of the intensity of populist feeling in the rest of the country.
4. Republicans have not won a presidential election with a Rockefeller Republican since…since… Taft? No, he lost.
I’m great with sitting judges being called before Congress. I’m also thinking Spengler has done an excellent thing here by delving into the issue now, in January, instead of allowing it to fester until late October. And that may have been Newt’s point all along, I think. WMR was getting the same free ride from his party’s big wigs as you-know-who received in ’07-’08 from his. But that would not have lasted long.
Once crowned as candidate, media roll-outs and progressive pundits will be all over everything he’s ever done. Now is the time to get it all out and examined, not then. This vetting process will likely make him a more palatable candidate to those of us who supported others. And is that bad? Some commenters here seem to think we need to shut up and love him because they say so. And that, dear friends, is how as party goes about losing a “sure thing”.
The fact that the “people’s representatives can ride roughshod over the constitution bothers me more than the concept of judicial review. If that concept bothered the founders then it was only because they expected better behavior from the people’s representatives. Pelosi’s support of Obama’s recent recess appointments would have set their heads spinning.
I haven’t seen the Iowa ads run against Gingrich but my understanding is that they contained facts, chiefly about Newt’s Freddie Mac connection. Certainly, if they were inaccurate I think we would have heard about it.
Re: your point #1 on judicial review:
Our Founders were smarter than that, this is a problem of political will/courage, not an inherent defect in the Constitution:
That’s the second paragraph of Artcile II Section 2 of the Constitution. All the Congress and maybe the Executive (veto override) need to do is to pass a “this time we mean it!” law removing it from judicial review; I remember reading this was done for Frank-Dodd (surprise).
There’s also the Andrew Jackson precedent; like many or most of the above examples it’s ugly (WRT to the Cherokees) but as the apocryphal quote puts it “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!“. Again, all it takes is political will/courage (of course, this could be valid grounds for impeachment and conviction).
We’re only in the mess of judge made law because that’s the way our ruling class likes it: no messy democracy, no accountability except for the 9 saints on the bench, etc.
A liberal friend was complaining about Gingrich to me, and I told him, “At least the man has ideas. However, all ideas are not created equal.”
Spengler,
I find Romney very acceptable based on his rhetoric, but less so based on his governing record and my perception of his qualities. Paul Johnson, whom you have quoted before, is one of my favorite historians too. When describing Sarah Palin (my preferred nominee), Johnson said: “You can have all the right ideas and the ability to express them. But if you haven’t got guts, if you haven’t got courage… all the other virtues are no good at all. It’s the central virtue.” From everything I’ve seen in regards to Romney, he lacks courage. And this bothers me. As an example, see Romney’s recent benign comments on the threat of militant Islam at an Iowa campaign stop versus Newt and Santorum’s full throttle defense of crushing radical Islam and its supporters. I also worry that Romney is unelectable. Obama’s class warfare argument only works against Romney. And that’s all Obama’s got. It doesn’t make sense to nominate a Wall Street guy in a class warfare election. Secondly, Romney underperforms in swing states. He underperforms in the blue-collar, Catholic Midwest and he underperforms in the South. He only won one state in these two regions in the 2008 primaries – and it was Michigan, which of course is a type of home base for him.
I agree with your comments on Private Equity. Obviously, Newt and Perry just want to win. But Romney’s argument that his experience as a businessman qualifies him for higher office is demonstrably false. Our best Presidents, Lincoln, Reagan, Truman, (and I suppose) Coolidge and Eisenhower – none of them had business experience. Who did? The Romney of his time – Herbert Hoover. The guy who helped turn a recession into the Great Depression. Far more important in my view is Romney’s natural instinct to intervene in the economy, as evidenced by his health care mandate, and his lack of courage in enacting conservative policies in Massachusetts before he decided he was running for the GOP nomination and had no chance to win a second term.
If Romney wins the nomination, I will have no problem supporting him and will do everything I can to help him win. But in the primaries, I’m supporting Santorum and Newt, who in my views have better records, have more courage and frankly, just might be more electable.
Lincoln had quite a bit of business experience in retail, most of it bad, as well as a brief military career. Truman did, too, although I’m not sure I’d rank him so high on the “best presidents” list. T. Roosevelt operated a ranch. Reagan had some experience in the movie biz.
I’ll agree that business experience is not a sufficient qualification for the presidency, but I really don’t think it’s a detriment.
If I challenged one of the points in your remarks, would you respond that I was attacking conservatism?
Because that’s what RomneyRove have done to respond to Newt and Perry questioning Romney’s business ethics.
And Romney seems incapable of defending capitalism, much less the organically necessary ‘creative destruction’ cycle.
Spoiled rich kid. What a shame.
This is small potatoes to what obama will do to romney. My suggestion to romney is if he can’t stand this little bitty fire, he should get out of the kitchen because obama is bringing hells kitchen down on him soon.
That is if America is so unfortunate to have romney as the Republican nominee.
America is lucky to have a candidate with Romney’s qualifications. He will be an excellent President. Education, intelligence, experience, temperament, skills and character. He is exactly what America needs now.
“He is exactly what America needs now.”
Yeah, if you want to play small ball and just be a progressive placeholder until the next obama.
Maybe your vision of what America needs… not mine.
Exactly.
FDR, wratchet…
LBJ, wratchet…
Nixon, wratchet…
Obama, wratchet…
You have to turn the wratchet back, not just hold the current line. Small ball doesnt work, it is a series of phyric victories to oblivion. I like to refer to it as Frum Dumb, rearranging the deck chairs in a Conservative manner on the USS Leftwing Titantic…as we continue directly at the iceburg.
That being said, I think that Romney will be effectively corralled by a Tea Party influenced GOP controlled congress (he wouldnt have the chance to capitulate to the Left Democrats)….which would also limit Newt Gingrich style amnesty. The real problem then becomes who can you trust to nominate another Thomas/Scalia/Alito/Roberts instead of another Souter/Myers/OConnor/Stevens. I have zero faith in Romney on that score, and I think Newt knows the score on that.
err…ratchet…how embarrassing!
really? cause Speaker Boehnor is cutting out Tea Party freshman in the next budget talks.
If Romney is the nominee all Obama has to do is decide do I go FDR v Hoover or do I go Dewey v Truman…Hmmmm…
One thing for certain is it will look like Wall St. is trying to buy the White House.
Romney doesn’t even have a strong record in MA…which is why he ran away from it.
@ EscapeVelocity
“err…ratchet…how embarrassing!”
Heh, I thought you were doin’ an Elmer Fudd imitation. I was waiting for the punchline….. ” Be vewry vewry quite, we are Wronmey hunting”
Ha! Ha!
Well let’s see what the polls say over the next few days but so far it appears to me as though Romney is doing just fine in the face of these liberal attack ads from “real conservatives”.
Im in SC, Romney is dominating the airwaves with both Pro-Romney ads and attack ads on Newt Gingrich.
Occassionally, their is a negative ad about Romney.
Is Goldman a Marxist? Creative destruction?
Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho. But “creative destruction” comes from the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter, not the odious Karl Marx.
Gold man, surely some one of stature knows that Schumpter appropriated the term from Marx and developed it.
This is a common misconception (especially among marxists).
The concepts discussed by Marx and Schumpeter are very different, and Marx never actually used the term.
Marx used “destruction precedes creation”, with the analogy of a forest fire clearing the way for new growth.
Schumpeter used “creative destruction”, wherein the new growth displaces the old (stagnant) stuff.
I have never read either Marx nor Schumpter but had also heard the term in relation to Marx. I guess better read both of them.
I learned about Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction in free markets in a required business strategy class senior year too many years ago. This was after taking lots of classes featuring conservative Keynesian economics. Creative destruction was a shocking concept at first, but after I thought about it I realized it was a good concept. The basic idea is that bad companies which fail to compete go out of business and should go out of business, while good competitive companies succeed because they are well managed, make products or offer services people want and earn profits. Absent government intervention, we would not have exploding electric cars or extremely expensive “green” energy failures. The market would have put the kibosh on such things with a lot fewer resources expended.
Economics / business is the one field in which Darwinism actually works. Naturally, that is the one place that liberals don’t believe in Darwinism.
the opposite of creative destruction is bailouts and “too big to fail”
In other words, the opposite of creative destruction is crony capitalism.
“If that is true, there is hope that once Gingrich and Perry come to understand that they are not going to be the Republican candidate, then the party will unite behind its candidate and this whole miserable discussion will be forgotten.”
And hopefully people will realize that the inevitability drum they beat for Romney makes him look LESS attractive to those of us who are not enamoured with him.
I’m sorry but you don’t need to force-feed someone a pill they want to swallow so why are you doing it with Romney hmm?
This mindset more than anything else is why I do not support Romney. The idea that he’s being force-fed to us by the bigwigs who pound that inevitability drum like a redheaded stepchild makes me wonder why.
If he is so amazing and such a great candidate then why is he being forced on us NOW?
You’re misconstruing Goldman’s statement and the idea that “elites” are force-feeding, ordaining or whatever, Romney, is nonsense. The “non-elite” grassroots had their say in the Iowa and New Hampshire and in both cases chose Romney by large margins. He leads in South Carolina and Florida. Barring some last-minute miracle that causes one of the other candidates to pull ahead (Gingrich? Perry? Paul? Santorum? You’re kidding, right?), Romney will be the nominee. Which is not to say that Romney might not be the “elites’” choice, but he clearly is the “non-elites” choice as well. Apparently, some of these “non-elites” cannot except that the majority of their fellow primary-voting “non-elites” are voting overwhelmingly for Romney and so, in their denial, must ascribe Romney’s victories as the work of the mysterious “elites” rather than accept that they simply were outvoted, fair and square. I suspect that many of these folks are the guys who refer to people who don’t vote their way, as “sheeple.”
For the record, I initially supported Cain and then Gingrich. But it’s now clear that, given the alternative choices, Romney, whatever his faults, is the best candidate.
Well apparently Romney got the memo too. He was practically writing his victory speeches before the first debate.
Before the candidates even announced their bids The higher-ups announced the Romney win.
And Romney ate it up. The only time I’ve seen him scramble is when it looked like he may lose.
As for Romney being the best candidate I’m sure he is…to his supporters.
But if supporters were such a big thing Paul has it in the bag.
How can he convince someone like me that his candidacy is something other than a thing to just grit my teeth over?
I’m sure his supports love him to death. I’m not one of his supporters and see very little that I would support about him.
The “non-elite” grassroots had their say in the Iowa and New Hampshire and in both cases chose Romney by large margins.
Yes the chose Romney by the whopping margin of 25%-75%.
If Romney is going to claim he created a net 100,000 jobs at Bain we have the right to demand that he prove it. So far again we’re getting a lot of waffling and doubletalk just like on Romneycare.
Can debbie prove that obamao created 2 million jobs? You can all go on about Romney being the same as obama and that is a joke! Bork is advising him and Amb Bolton has endorsed him. If you think the 2nd amendment will stand when barack and michelle appoint 1 or 2 more supremes – you are whistling Dixie! So enjoy your guns while you cling to them because they will be gone soon enough!
“Unfettered capitalism”? Come on, Spengler, in truth we have mixed economy and there’s plenty of regulation of both investment and consumer markets. Romney, like his brainwashed Dad before him, likes our mixed economy and has thrived in it. Would he de-regulate markets in any significant way (including repealing Romneycare, er, I mean Obamacare)?
I do agree that Romney would be a better President than the incumbent. But that’s setting the bar quite low. As Roger Simon wrote recently, Romney may be the nominee and so we may have to hold our noses and vote for him. He may just be the evil of two lessers …
However, at this point I am supporting Santorum.
Romneycare is a state issue! Can you ever understand that!
Santorum spent his political capital on the Shiavo case and lost his Senate seat by 18% to a cipher who had only his father’s name. That’s a great candidate you’ve got there. I like him but he would be a footnote to Obama’s re-election.
Romney, like his brainwashed Dad before him, likes our mixed economy and has thrived in it.
So has Spengler. They both fear free markets more than the slow socialist slide of the last century. It’s laughable to think that either wants to reverse that long term trend.
So frustrating, can’t these pundits see what Obama’s machine is doing? Romney epitomizes “greedy fat cat corporatations” to liberals, leftists, and INDEPENDENTS. Neither democrats nor Republicans can win without Independents. Romney is skating by the destruction-maul of the MSM untouched. Because he’s the one liberals want to face in the general election. OWS anyone? Watch the video that Gingrich bought the rights to for a gentle preview of how the MSM and Obama will take out Romney. Oh- and by the way, I used to be in business and I know these choices – ways to make money that are perfectly legal but not very “good.” And Romeny’s way often wasn’t very good. Here’s a good article below…
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/287707/battle-bain-capital-michael-walsh
Romney and Paul have been on the attack for months. So what makes Gingrich’s and Perry’s actions egregious when Romney and Paul both got a pass. Sorry, I will not vote for either Romney or Paul. A great many people in the Bible Belt will not vote for Romney. Romney and Paul both signal the reelection of Obama. If that is what you want continue to support them.
Yep, obama…romney. Heads the left wins, tails conservatives/America loses.
Mark me down as a not voting for romney in the general too. I’ll vote down ticket for real conservatives… but I will not vote for a progressive like romney. The “R” does not matter. romney is part of the Arlen Specter wing.
Why should anyone care? You’re a liberal anyway. You wouldn’t have voted republican no matter what happened. No loss.
I can easily envision a scenario in which the Establishment Republicans are scratching their collective head the day after Obama wins re-election and asking themselves “You mean those Evangelicals are serious about Mormonism being a un-Christian and a cult, and wouldn’t vote for one, even to beat the Unicorn Rider?” Yes, I – an Evangelical Christian – can easily imagine that.
When Michelle Bachmann made outlandish claims about the vaccine that had been mandated in Texas, she lost all credibility in my eyes. Gingrich and Perry have now done the same. (They also seem to have forgotten President Reagan’s 11th Commandment and who the opponent is.) The only person I know who hasn’t attacked Romney on this issue is Rick Santorum (don’t know about Huntsman). I have many problems with Romney (including Romneycare and my perception that he lacks backbone), but Bain Capital is not one of them. As far as I’m concerned, his opponents are shooting themselves in the head by these nutty attacks on him.
Off topic – I read your article about Turkey in the Asia Times (1/10/2012). Excellent analysis.
Jack – just to be fair, I think it’s important to point out that it’s Romney, not his opponents, who first forgot the 11th ammendment. Romney went negative on Perry and Newt in spades in his campaign ads. I think his quickness to go negative is why many of his opponents – Rudy, McCain, Huckabee, Newt – seem to dislike him so strongly. I also think his attacking his opponents for their lack of conservatism bothers these guys, who mostly had more conservative records than Mitt, but didn’t have the money, or interest, to respond to his attack ads.
P.S. I don’t dislike Mitt. I just don’t think he’s the best nominee
DodgerUSA – Appreciate the info. Who will be left to vote for?
Who’ll be left to pick from?
Well, seems if you get your wish. obama, or obama lite(romney) …. otherwise known as Hobson’s Choice.
“As far as I’m concerned, his opponents are shooting themselves in the head by these nutty attacks on him.”
Or romney, who has his Super Pac doing the dirty work on Newt.. all the while the smarmy bastard(ronmey) smiles and says the “Hells Kitchen” thing. For that I will never vote for that progressive scumbag.
Better to have obama than romney. Same same in my book… just better we can have a enemy we can fully oppose, than one who taints us the same as if we were them.
She made a claim that appears to be outrageous. Lesson in immunology: a certain small subset of people react to vaccines in general. Those reactions run the gamut from localized swelling to brain damage to death. These are well known side effects within the public health sector. The government immunizes the few vaccine makers from law suits as a result of the side effects. It is a decision that the good of the many outweigh the good of the few. The government steps in and recompenses those of the few who suffer the extremes of side effects. No conspiracy here just facts. This makes logical sense when you are faced with harming a few as a result of the vaccine or harming many as a result of a serious epidemic caused by dangerous pathogens.
As long as the “vaccine” is voluntary, and parents decide for minors, all is well with that.
After all the greater good is served by those vaccinated, while freedom is preserved too. The whole(greater good) decides the issue. The more who see the worth, obviously the greater the good it is.
Ummm, no: for the classic communicable diseases like the resurgent measles and mumps “herd immunity” is critical. Some vaccinations don’t take or protect long enough, you’ve got to get enough of the “herd” vaccinated so that the disease stops circulating in the population. Bottom line is that fewer overall, from whichever cause, will be crippled and killed if you mandate vaccination for these diseases.
However “Perry’s Vaccine” only protects from the consequences of promiscuous sex; herd immunity is not in play (you’re never going to get enough people vaccinated), the benefits and risks are less clear and the argument for “freedom of choice” and parental consent is strong.
You fail to see my point. If the vaccine has worth the “herd” will see that worth and self vaccinate freely, it may take some education. But your “herd” vaccination will still occur sans government mandate/coercion.
Likewise the argument about not getting enough vaccinated ala’ a Perry/government mandate is untrue if we accept your first premise that the government can mandate effective herd vaccination. Which it obviously can as I have the scar on my shoulder to prove it.
And yes, I am not disagreeing that the damage done by vaccines outweighs their benefits on the whole. Unless of course it is you or your child damaged.
That last sentence…… “disagreeing” should be “contending” mayhap I think.
If the vaccine has worth the “herd” will see that worth and self vaccinate freely, it may take some education.
Can you supply any evidence to support this? Note that really high percentages are required for herd immunity; according to the chart at Wikipedia (which agrees with my memory) we’re talking 80-94% (!). Even a grave and communicable a disease as smallpox requires 83-85% (it’s the only one grave enough that we’ve been able to wipe it off the face of the earth).
Do you think education, especially as poorly performed as it is in the US today, is up to keeping the number of unvaccinated for measles to less than 6%, especially in the face of a propaganda campaign against vaccination effective and respected enough to ensnare one of the former serious Republican presidential nomination candidates?
You do have a point. About the stupid. But then evolution/Gods will(depending on perspective),will take care of that.
Eugenics vr’s Diseugnics I do s’pose.
Small pox has not been eradicated. What happens when your needle clinic… no longer reaches the 85%. Probably could ask an American Indian … if you know any.
You and I do not disagree… per see. Just perspective.
If medical science and modern civilization can stay ahead of the game… and both are needed.. Big IF. Then a few thousand dieing ala’ whatever vaccine a government/Perry type decrees may be warrented. The problem is that Perry did not have the moral backing of a “Small Pox” threat to the State to issue his executive authority.
I hate Dictators..obama or Perry. Cervical cancer is not a threat to the existance of the State..US. And that is the difference betwixt Perry’s dictate and a Small Pox vaccine.
… you’ve got to get enough of the “herd” vaccinated so that the disease stops circulating in the population,
So Americans are cattle to be husbanded by their owners in your opinion.
So Americans are cattle to be husbanded by their owners in your opinion.
If you don’t want a lot of children who did get their measles vaccine to nonetheless get it and it’s often crippling long terms effects, you could put it that way if you’re a demagogue.
If you’re complaining about the term “herd” as used by epidemiologists and public health scientists, this is a field where the contributions of veterinarians has been critical (one of the best beginner’s intros as of the early ’00s was written by a vet) and trying to find greater meaning in the etymology of their scientific jargon is senseless.
Michele Bachman did not make outlandish claims. Many vaccines contain mercury which causes autism. What she did say was what a woman had told her. (The woman had an autistic child.) My daughter who is a hairstylist has told me she has a number of customers who believe that their children have autism because of vaccinations. That is what is known aa anecdotal evidence. That was all that Michele bachman pointed out. It was El Fatbo, the so called conservative talk show host, that claimed that Michele had jumped the shark. I personally do not listen to the kind of person who has Elton John at his wedding. Such a person is no conservative.
I like Michelle Bachman, but her statement on vaccines was irresponsible. There is no evidence that Mercury in vaccines causes autism. Did you know that the studies that first proposed the connection between vaccines and autism have been exposed as fraudulent? The data was altered.
Many people believe many things based on anecdotal stories. The Enlightenment of the 16th and 17th centuries introduced the scientific method as an optional way to separate fact from fiction. The unproven claim that Mercury in vaccines causes autism is a regression to pre-Enlightenment thinking.
“Many vaccines contain mercury which causes autism. What she did say was what a woman had told her. (The woman had an autistic child.) ”
So…….Michelle Bachmans evidence in based on the testimony of a woman who is not known of have any medical expertise.Who is this woman ,what does she know?Did she file a complaint,lawsuit,appear on TV,write a letter to the editor….ANYTHING against Gardasil?Hell,does she even exist?!
And you would have us believe Bachmann based on THIS?
“My daughter who is a hairstylist has told me she has a number of customers who believe that their children have autism because of vaccinations. That is what is known aa anecdotal evidence. ”
No in this case, this is hearsay and shoddy research.We are talking about life and death and presidential politics.One cant expect to happy with mere “anecdotal evidence” that your daughter picks up gossipping from her hairstylist friends!
I dont know what you do for a living ,but I hope to God you are not a journalist!
FYI I was very pro Bachmann until she came up with this codswallop.Similary I was for Rick Perry until …well..take your pick!
I was on board the Cain train until it became clear that he is not serious about anything outside his realm of expertise esp National Security.
I was pro Newt Gingrich until I watched his reaction the negative attacks and defeat in Iowa.I never understood why Gingrich was disliked in the 90s until now.
Never bothered about Santorum,Huntsman or Paul
Obviously I am no Romney groupie but he is the ONLY candidate who has shown that he can run a presidential campaign.He is calm, focussed,disciplined and measured and projects a sober,clean cut,dignified image.Who else can this apply to?
“Obviously I am no Romney groupie but he is the ONLY candidate who has shown that he can run a presidential campaign.He is calm, focussed,disciplined and measured and projects a sober,clean cut,dignified image.Who else can this apply to?”
Uh, maybe obama. Just sayin’.
As for Bachmann relating the story of the woman who lost a child to gadrisil(sp?). She related an, evidently(unless you have some proof otherwise), true story. Pols do this all the time.
“Uh, maybe obama. Just sayin’.”
Cute,but idiotic retort nonetheless.Its already a given that all the Republican candidates are much more qualified than Obama.If one has the outward presidential aspects of Obama coupled with his campaigning strengths, why not?
Unless your idea of a great campaign is Michelle Bachmanns!
“As for Bachmann relating the story of the woman who lost a child to gadrisil(sp?). She related an, evidently(unless you have some proof otherwise), true story.
WTF??Why should it be my problem to disprove a story based on such flimsy evidence.If you worship at the temple of Bachmann,thats your problem.The rest of us rational beings would rather politicians substantiate their fantastic claims.Yes we can be a bit silly that way.On second thought you probably lay prostrate at the feet of David “prove that it isnt” Axelrod and the Alinsky school of politics.You are demonstrating a mob like behavior as elucidated by Ann Coulter, you may as well be a liberal!
I ask you what is YOUR proof for this story.
Pols do this all the time”
So we are supposed to take their word for it?
Just to be clear about my pundits: I meant Roger L. Simon of PJmedia who wrote here, not the other guy at Politico …
“Ron Paul, who is … Charles Lindbergh without the airplane” – nice
I haven’t heard a generalized attack by Gingrich and Perry on private equity firms, and no attack at all on capitalism. All of a sudden, it has somehow become a cardinal sin to challenge Romney’s record. Kind of reminds me of the force field around the guy occupying the white house.
Why this circling of the wagons around Romney, especially since the circling of the wagons is about the deflection, not the specific charge? I didn’t see 99% of the media circle the wagons around Newt, the guy who has far and away the most conservative accomplishments since RR, or Perry, the governor of the most successful state in the country for the last 12 years.
Seems to me that this “attack on capitalism” thing has become like the republican version of screaming racism. It’s a way to shut somebody up.
What I don’t understand is why a man who has nothing to hide won’t explain the transactions that he has been challenged about. Just like every other candidate has to do, and just like Romney will have to do in the general election if his tactics get him there despite being the candidate nobody other than the ruling elite has wanted.
Sorry, proreason. You are one of my favorites…but, you are defending your man (Gingrich) in full blindfold.
Just as Bryan Preston has a blind spot for Perry and won’t criticize him, except by faint and small measures, your defense of Gingrich against every blunder, faux pas, and outright mistake destroys your credibility on this subject.
They attacked what BAIN did…not what Romney specifically did at Bain. They attacked in broad strokes what Bain and other private equity firms do. It’s an asshole move, period. It won’t help them at all win…anything. It doesn’t help argue for the free market against the anti-capitalist slime that is trying to overthrow this country.
In fact, it fuels them. And that is what really sucks about it.
You can say Romney started it, you can say Romney had some counterpunches coming to him. But, attacking Bain for being a private equity firm…is a scorched earth policy ploy that only a loser would back. Or a small c communist.
You are neither. You’re just too blindly loyal to your guy. I understand that loyalty. I even admire it. You’re still dead wrong though.
Well you’re one of my faves as well cf, but you are the blind one on this.
First, I’m not a Newt-to-the-death guy. I’ve freely said many times that he and Romney are the two viable candidates and that they are both flawed. I was one of the earlier ones to move to Newt, but that was only AFTER Perry made his mistakes and Cain published his hare-brained plan. So the evidence simply doesn’t support your contention that I’m a die-hard. I still recognize, and worry about his flaws, including his decision to use the Bain material. The reasons I prefer Newt are that he makes the best conservative case, he has only record of significant conservative achievement and he’s a fighter.
Moreover, I was only 51% Newt and 49% Romney for two months…until Romney decided to play dirty. Than I saw the pattern; Perry, Cain and Newt. Then the reports came out that Gulliani and Thompson haven’t come out for Romney because of Romney’s negative ads against them in 2008, even though Romney is the natural pick for both of them. Then I started paying closer attention to Mitt’s campaign against Kennedy during which he declared himself to not be no Reaganite, and lost big in a Republican year. Then the other well-documented flip-flops, which I had been willing to give him a pass on, but now am viewing from a broader perspective. And that perspective is…NO ETHICS WHATSOEVER. The man will do or say anything, and doesn’t give a shit about who or what he hurts.
Excuse me for observing that his Bain history falls neatly into that pattern.
But beyond that, why shouldn’t a candidate challenge another’s background. So what if the challenge was Bain rather than Romney. They are the same thing. There has been NO challenge by Newt or Perry to capitalism. No claim that there is a better economic system; no calls for regulation of private equity or venture capital businesses; no calls for investigations; nada against capitalism…just Romney and Bain.
So all of this nonsense about “attacks on capitalism” is just the Ruling Class Republicans’ vesion of racism. It’s all about shutting somebody up.
Now, a report is out today by Fortune that shoots down some of the material in the film. It seems to remove Romney from 2 of the 4 transactions and to question the claims on another. If that stands up, it will help Romney’s case and hurt Newt for allowing the film to go out. But even if Fortune is right, it still doesn’t make Romney any less culpable for his own PAC’s dishonest characterization of Gingrich.
Romney started the dirty pool, as he did in 2008. He has a history of political pandering that is I consider unethical when viewed as a body of work. And he ain’t no conservative, unless you only listen to today’s flip or flop. This is no happy warrior who wants to take the country back from the marxists. Romney is a nakedly ambitious panderer who is willing to do or say anything to win. Like the republicans who have ruled since Reagen, it’s about the power, not about freedom and the Constitution.
And Newt has every right to fight back. We’ll see if the country falls for the RoveRomney sleight of hand to equate the attact on Romney to an attack on capitalism. A lot of smart pundits have fallen for it. We’ll see if the country does.
Latest poll has Newt rising in SC.
I have a lot of respect for both proreason and cfbleachers, though we all have our disagreements. Im with proreason on this.
Im in SC and Im voting for Newt. I would have voted for Newt or Santorum(whoever the socon Christians coalesced around)…whomever looked to be most likely to take out Romney here. I probably prefer Newt a bit to Santorum, and it looks like Newt is rising in SC. Thankfully Huntsman gained some momentum in NH, enough for him to head down to SC, and is now siphoning votes away from Romney in SC. It is a huge relief that the split Conservative vote isnt going to coronate the farthest left RINO again, like last time with McCain….or at least that more than one RINO is splitting that vote up.
I voted Fred Thompson last go round.
All that being said, I think that Romney would be contained by a TeaParty influenced GOP controlled House and Senate…it would even contain Newts hairbrained schemes and dreams of amnesty. But I dont trust Romney to nominate the Supreme Court Justice that would do what is necessary to roll back 60 years of Leftwing jurisprudence. I know that Newt knows the score on that.
That being said, I would definitely vote for either one in the General. I just much prefer Newt. I think Newt has the ability to make a well informed policy wonk historian argument for Conservative ideas and principles that he actually believes in….Romney not so much.
Best
EV
From the deals I saw and I was a CPA for 25 years the most creative part of creative destruction was how the firms that engaged in the process managed to arranged things so that no matter what happened they couldn’t lose ajy of their own money. Only big time real estate developers seem to have more ways to milk fees from an enterprise.
Honey, with all due respect, you may know log cabins and things like that, but this is way over your head.
Mtn. Gal, I hope you will cut Mr. Bedford a little slack. After all, he did call you Honey, so you have to assume his own head is in the right place.
Mountain Girl claims to be a CPA with professional experience of private equity deals. If Bedford does not believe her, he can make technical points which reveal her inadequacy. Instead, I see Honey, with all due respect, you may know log cabins and things like that, but this is way over your head. I’m pretty sure who is in over their head.
Thanks for your comment, Mountain Girl.
I’m with you, gs. I was trying to be subtle. Too subtle I suppose.
Creative destruction is a greatly abused type of “legal” business. Romney started the food fight in the campaign, also. He has no ethics.
No Fallon, the issue may be too complicated for you, but Romney didn’t get a bailout.
Ouch, musta’ touched a nerve. LOL
To every season there is a spin spin spin. Congrats on your Barbara Streisand moment.
Fallon Fanton Fooie. In any event, you are 100% wrong Fanton. What Romney did was demonstrate determination, genius and incredible financial dexterity. He deserves to be praised for his role in the GS Technologies matter. And he will receive it from people who are fair minded enough to take the time to look into the matter.
Am I the only one who is reminded by Terry Gain’s replies, of every conversation with a liberal we have ever had?
It’s you who is acting like a liberal Fanton. The reason you resort to a stupid ad hominem attack is because you have nothing else. Kevin Williamson’s article makes it quite clear that Romney has been unfairly maligned. He didn’t create the debt problem at Bain. He wan’t even there when it occurred. And he helped solve the problem, as Williamson explains in the article to which I linked.
Romney may have caught flak for saying that he likes being able to fire people, but at Bain he showed that he knows how to handle underperforming executives — including his old boss and mentor, Bill Bain. Romney wrested control of the firm from the senior partners who had run it onto the rocks, and twisted their arms into returning more than $100 million in cash and securities. In return for his doing so, many of Bain’s creditors agreed to write down some of the firm’s debts. When somebody owes you money, the last thing you want is for him to go into bankruptcy — better to get back 85 cents on the dollar of what you’re owed than to get back $0.00. Among the Bain debts written down was that owed to the Bank of New England, which had by that time gone bust and been taken over by the FDIC. Bain’s sole involvement with the FDIC in the matter was that the regulator, acting as receiver for a failed bank (i.e., doing its job) agreed to a run-of-the-mill debt writedown, like any number of creditors do any given day of the week.
Trouble is, lots of destruction, not much creativity. Unless you count seeing a single European as opposed to all the H-1B indentured faces at the Microsoft campus on a Thursday afternoon as creativity. The trouble is sometimes I fear David conflates the form (Asians tend to excel at music, mathematics and science) with the content (all those disciplines largely being invented by dead European males, not Chinese or Indian designers originally).
David has been accused of thinking that if we just brought in more Asians that would force the lazy U.S. natives who were buoyed by unearned foreign capital to work harder. It’s a slight fallacy, particularly if applied in a tiny country like Israel (or Norway!), but more so in the U.S. if it leads American born youngsters to the conclusion that non-Asian males need not apply in the STEM fields, though there may be plentiful scholarships for females and African-Americans who pursue those paths. And also that there may be limits to how much innovation the Chinese and Indians accomplish despite having a much much larger base from which to start from in raw population. That said I don’t doubt that Asians on average have slightly higher IQs (I never see Asian dudes for example getting up on my rear in traffic even if it means standing their vehicle on railroad tracks, though I do see Mexican males doing this). These things do lend themselves to innovating or simply running more businesses when paired with parental drive. I just don’t think bringing in a hundred million would be the answer as one would necessarily see a deviation back to the IQ mean with such large numbers.
“When Michelle Bachmann made outlandish claims about the vaccine that had been mandated in Texas, she lost all credibility in my eyes.” The problem is she was discussing the wrong vaccine from memory, and her aides were incompetent. Competent aides would have ridden to the rescue by pointing out the horrible complications particularly pre and early teen girls have experienced from certain vaccines like Gardisil that the media plays down.
““Ron Paul, who is … Charles Lindbergh without the airplane” – nice” This is actually a cheap shot at Lindbergh, who while he went into full blown anti-Semitism in 1941, also gave the War Department damn good intelligence on the person of Herman Goering and the Luftwaffe’s aggressive rearmament program in the late 1930s. You have to at least consider the possibility that Lindbergh’s public statements in the late 30s, disgusting as many of them were, may have been a cover.
” … You have to at least consider the possibility that Lindbergh’s public statements in the late 30s, disgusting as many of them were, may have been a cover.”
Or that, regrettably, it was not all that uncommon an attitude at the time.
“Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry should be ashamed of themselves for bean-counting Bain Capital’s record on job creation.”
Romney has been campaigning as a job creator, touting a number of 100,00. So, it is somehow wrong for his opponents to ask for proof? Please.
FYI – Mitt Romney and 100,000 jobs: an untenable figure
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romney-and-100000-jobs-an-untenable-figure/2012/01/09/gIQAIoihmP_blog.html
“Romney certainly has a good story to tell about knowing how to manage a business, spotting opportunities and understanding high finance. But if he is to continue to make claims about job creation, the Romney campaign needs to provide a real accounting of how many jobs were gained or lost through Bain Capital investments while the firm managed these companies — and while Romney was chief executive. Any jobs counted after either of those data points simply do not pass the laugh test.”
The award for Romney’s claim? Three Pinocchios
Perry and Gringrich are dead to me.
I’m all for private equity and creative destruction, but when the reality is too big too fail institutions (in the absence, for example, of a turn of the twentieth century break up of Standard Oil and the rail road trusts applied to the current giant banking squids with their interlocking political pod suckers), then one ends up with the political distribution of rewards and punishments rather than disinterested market failures. Solandyra gets the socialized risk taking political investment, the taxpayer gets the socialized shaft when the investment goes bad, and one ends up with a prevaricating pompous president harping on the political redistribution of pain (taxes on the wealthy) because the wealthy were exempt from the merit based, non-political, market in the first place. But I suspect the stallion is out of the barn and the bi-coastal mares are running the ranch so there’s no turning back short of a systemic meltdown on the range. I wouldn’t mind it so much if it was state investments in, say, going to the moon or mars for which there is no market, but this crap of wasting money in publicly funded earth bound GM Volts, for example, is absurd.
I wouldn’t walk across the street to see either newt or rick!
Please SC send them packing along with jon jr.
If you didn’t hear Gov Romney’s speech in NH you should watch and listen.
If he gets past SC and Florida I hope he picks Rubio – talk about eye candy!
OK, they are both very, very, very smart.
Then the next day Romney compared what he did at Bain with what Obama did with General Motors. Just another croney capitalist.
Learn the difference between compare and contrast.
private money v. taxpayer money.
Romney was illustrating the difference.
Romney/Bain also didn’t have the power of the government to re-write bankruptcy laws, putting secured creditors behind the unions (I know, that’s Chrysler).
That was a fantastically boneheaded move, since it means that companies with political juice will be much less likely to get financing secured by their assets when they get into trouble, resulting in of course more and unneeded bankruptcies and government bailouts.
“Romney/Bain also didn’t have the power of the government to re-write bankruptcy laws, putting secured creditors behind the unions (I know, that’s Chrysler).”
Yet.. you fergot the “YET”.
Dear Mr. Goldman:
I agree with the critique by commentator #17 “Viktor” about the analogy you draw between the kook Ron Paul and Charles Lindberg.
Ron Paul is snake-oil salesman. One doubts if he has any real beliefs except a juvenile anarchism he identifies as Libertarianism. He played the race card against blacks when that seemed convenient, now he’s playing the same against whites.
He rails against imaginary enemies (Federal Reserve) and is in favor of appeasing real ones (Islam, Mexican reconquistadors).
Mr. Lindberg was most assuredly non a philosemite. It would be fair to state that he regarded the Jewish community as an alien influence in the US, and it would be equally fair to state that he wanted to limit this influence as far as possible. At the same time, he acknowledged their contribution to the West. Otherwise why would he write that ” “We must limit to a reasonable amount the Jewish influence…Whenever the Jewish percentage of total population becomes too high, a reaction seems to invariably occur. It is too bad because a few Jews of the right type are, I believe, an asset to any country.”
I see nothing inaccurate or hateful about that succinct analysis. Jewish values, especially mainstream Jewish values, are dramatically different from traditional American values. One can hardly blame a man for wanting to preserve his culture and heritage.
He did not support Nazi internment of Jews, and he was disgusted by the camps. One of his offenses was stating the obvious: Jewish influence would alter the American character. His other offense was actually having a principle, viz., non-intervention in conflicts that did not directly threaten the US and sticking by that principle.
The conman posing as a strict constitutionalist and non-interventionist is nothing like Lindberg. I doubt if Lindberg would bear any animosity towards a Jewish homeland, even from base motives, as that would serve the purpose of removing what he considered an alien influence. Whereas Ron Paul seems to seethe at the very existence of Eretz Yisroel.
The analogy is invalid. It is an unfair slur upon Lindberg and an undeserved compliment to Ron Paul.
However, Mr. Lindberg
Lindbergh redeemed himself–to some extent–by taking a lowly job as a transport pilot for the Air Force in the Pacific. He was a very brave man, and in his own way a patriot, although his support for Hitler was unforgivable. So I suppose I share some of your sentiments.
His support for Hitler was unforgivable. However, his biggest crime may have simply been picking the wrong side. Plenty of others supported Mussolini at first, and many many others supported Stalin. I mean to say that the most famous man in America didn’t become a footnote because of being considered an anti-semite or crypto-fascist. In the context of the era, it was for picking the wrong side.
Of all the big wars – many of which I consider to have been follies – that America has fought, WWII was one that needed fighting. This is because of the sheer evil of Hitler’s regime, the development of air warfare and possibly nuclear bombs, and finally America’s involvement in WWI.
WWI, however, was a war we assuredly did not need to become involved with. It was a Wilsonian folly. Who knows what would have happened had we never become involved in backing up British power in Europe – which for all its imperial glory and wealth still seemed to require American arms, loans, and troops. The war itself was fought exclusively because of European competition in developing large empires.
That’s important to understand because prior to WWII things like nuclear weapons and Hitler’s unique brand of evil were not publicly known in America. Early opposition to the war was totally understandable. Moreover, it is a fact that America provoked Japan into war, and it is likely that this was a deliberate policy. It’s even possible, though speculative and cynical, that an unpopular FDR, running for an unprecedented third term, presiding over a economically wasted America, wanted the war to happen as a political ploy to preserve his power.
Once things played out, it was clear that there was going to be war and it had to be won. But in 1939 that was not entirely clear to the American public.
We defeated Japan’s empire, great, now Communist China rules Asia – albeit with our Japanese buffer to protect the Pacific from their influence. I bet that’s how George III felt about his American colonies…
What if we hadn’t provoked Japan into war? What if Hitler and Stalin destroyed each other, as had Napoleon as he marched all the way to Moscow only to be left with no army? Without the existential threat of total defeat by the allies, would the German public and leadership continue to support Hitler’s madness as war dragged on and on?
A counter-factual to be certain, and knowing what we now know we’d have pulled the trigger of war in the 30′s. But it provides perspective.
The founders’ original non-interventionism was a sound policy based on this idea: liberty is prosperous, supported by the people even unto their deaths, and is a threat to no one. Empires rely on mercantalism, on military force in order to meet national objectives. Illiberal empires inevitably crumble as the lose liberty and run out of people to rob. And we’ve seen since the 18th century how even a liberal empire such as Britain’s can have unsustainable cost as well (WWI).
That’s a good policy, we need to move in that direction. Your Paul/Lindbergh comparison is cheap rhetoric.
Thank you for your response, sir.
His support for Hitler was beyond foolish. Perhaps one can take into account that he may not have known about Die Endlösung and may have believed that Hitler was less dangerous than the Soviet Union. Perhaps that could mitigate his initial enthusiasm for “that man”.
On the other hand, I can never forgive his support for Henry Ford.
PS: Loved How Civilizations Die. Have gifted it to several liberals who have mercifully broken off all contact with me!
Adi Barot – Viktor at #17 is a very strong (may I say “rabid”?) supporter of Ron Paul. His comment seems to be an attempt to hide Paul behind Lindbergh’s record as an authentic hero of American exploration and aviation.
I took Spengler’s reference to Lindy’s “airplane” to be an invocation of his aviation achievements while recognizing that he was, at best, way out of his depth as a leader of the isolationist movement. He should have stuck with flying and engineering
Paul, on the other hand, is a political figure. If his integrity and judgment with respect to political activity is seriously called into question then there is certainly no reason to give him respect in the public arena. As has been shown ad nauseam, Paul was closely involved for years with newsletters which peddled racism, bore his name, and raked in big bucks. He deserves no political credibility and doesn’t have any aviation heroism to fall back on.
As a side note, I’ve read in many places that, despite the War Department denying him a commission in WWII, Lindy traveled throughout the Pacific theatre as a manufacture’s rep and even flew some P-38 combat missions on the “down-low”.
By the middle of the Pacific war, American P-38′s were flying long-range patrols, looking for Japanese aircraft and ships. The Army Air Corps ran a study to determine the best fuel-conservation techniques for the P-38, so that patrols could cover more territory per flight. The Army’s Jimmy Doolittle (pioneer of blind landings, then leader of the “Doolittle raid” on Tokyo in early 1942) asked Charles Lindbergh (pioneer of long-range overwater flight) to help with that study. The techniques they developed (extreme leaning, “oversquare” throttling, even shutting down one of the two engines) were considered aviation heresy at the time, but they worked.
When Doolittle found out that the fighter jocks in the field were resisting these new heresies, he got Lindbergh a contract (nominally as a rep for Shell Oil) to fly out to the Pacific theatre in a P-38 and teach the new techniques in person. The fighter jocks could toss a memo in the trash, but they had to listen to Lindbergh, who had “been there and done that”. He flew alongside pilots 20 years younger than he was, flying the same missions in the same airplane, teaching them fuel conservation along the way. History does not record whether Lindbergh actually got off a few shots at the enemy, but he was flying a combat aircraft through a war zone, and he certainly could have.
I don’t support Lindbergh’s isolationism, although I think I can understand it, after the horrors of WWI. I don’t support his anti-semitism (such as it was). But I can find no fault with his patriotism. Or his courage.
I don’t doubt his patriotism or his personal courage, either. But he was a nutball racist who did a great deal of harm to American interests during the 1930s.
Probably, I’ve never studied his part of his life but I’m willing to accept your judgment.
However, in, say, the doubling of my knowledge of him during this period that I’ve gained from reading this discussion I couldn’t help but notice the concept of “the wrong kind of Jews” and wonder about e.g. the Communists (certainly not all Jews) who danced in the streets of NYC when Paris fell (for the benefit of others, the Party Line until June 22nd, 1941 of course was that Hitler and the Nazis were good, since the USSR would clean up afterwords (and it did indeed to a significant extent anyway)).
While I’m a philosemite I can’t help but noticing that American Jews are overwhelming “liberal” to hard left, including pretty much all of my Jewish friends over the years. Never was able to convince any of them to learn to shoot from me, although the most interesting example here was where by pure rhetoric (and, well, having all the facts on my side ^_^) I was able convince a Jew at my university of the importance of the RKBA and he became an activist (some of the very best US RKBA activists are Jews).
So, yeah, “nutball racist”, and certainly the US Communist Jews in the ’30s weren’t out of step with the times , but….
Personally, I favor the impression that the Gingrich, Perry attacks (if you would) do not relate to “capitalism.” The point their complaints bring out are in part addressed in “Special report: Romney’s steel skeleton in the Bain closet.” This case, while Romney headed Bain, demonstrates the firm saw to it that it would receive substantial benefits, even at the risk of the ultimate failure/death of its “patient.” So one of the characteristics of this candidate might be said to be: Self-Interest first.
His cheerful “liking to fire people,” as compared to liking the opportunity to hire/purchase services from the most effective person/source at the best price, furthers this impression.
With his approval of and continuing support for RomneyCare … one might say another characteristic is: A desire to Control the people (state residents, state medical resources and the related Bureaucracy). Also to bath a the sun of Accolades, as the Administration receives from ObamaCare?
He has demonstrated a quality as a “true believer” in “climate change” which may be caused by humans and (as of the latest pronouncement)shouldn’t have trillions dedicated to addressing it (but then how much??? – Can “true believers,” with top staff from Mass. in the Obama Administration and the EPA, be trusted not to take costly actions related to this farce?}
He claims an ability, like McCain’s, to reach across the isle and work with Democrats (todays progressives? Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? Only if he offers a full capitulation.)
These points give me more than pause as I consider the issue of the nature and propensities Mr. Romney would demonstrate were he to assume the management of our rapidly failing United States.
Living in wholly hopeless, winner take all, Sorosland/Maryland … I have more options than most. I don’t see, with Governor Perry’s record as one of the most effective conservative executives in the Nation, he would be a threat to “capitalism.” I would gladly vote for him! I am much more concerned with a solid record than I am with any demonstrated caution and verbal excellence (particularly on his first time out on the campaign trail). I would be a little more reluctant with the brilliant Gingrich. I’d be much happier seeing him as a vital idea man and adviser to a solid conservative President.
Maryland will go for the Administration, the more fools, they. On the other hand if Romney is the nominee … I won’t be voting for President this time and I will most likely go back to being an independent. To each their own, but the sad part is we all end up having to live with the outcome.
You make a very good case, to which I’d add:
My generally most important issue is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) and Romney’s record there is bad (details upon request). Although the politics of the nation today are so pro-RKBA that I’m not worried about it.
What I’m most worried about are financial/fiscal issues: for the former, the likely coming Creditanstalt Mark II when the Euro unravels (although that’ll likely happen before the election … and then likely doom Obama) and our “trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see” (actually roughly one and half trillion).
The world’s appetite for US Federal Debt is likely to be finite in the medium term (we’re helped right now by being one of the least worst places to park your assets) and hard, very unpleasant things are going happen sooner or later. The only question is will we seriously turn down the spigot today or will be forced to when we hit a brick wall (I’m old enough to remember Carter and the early Reagan days when the Treasury had to offer ~ 20% interest rates to get people to buy debt, although that wasn’t quite the same thing (yet), a lot was driven by inflation which peaked near 15%).
I don’t see the Republican establishment of which most of use agree Romney is a member of dealing effectively with this before we arrive at the brick wall. Although maybe the Tea Party congressmen will force it; we’ll see.
Romney will push Cap-N-Trade as president. The dems will support it and so will the Republican crapitalist establishment, which means the abomination will pass in “bi-partisan” fashion.
That alone, is reason to never vote for Romney.
How do you square this with the dems refusing to pass it when they had a supermajority prior to 2011?
I seriously doubt that many “capitalists” want to pay a lot more for their energy; this is a policy with a lot more losers than winners.
The dems didn’t pass it in 08 because they were obsessed with Obamneycare, didn’t want to give more ammunition to their opposition in ’08 and thought that they would be able to pass it then anyway.
Look here’s da facts:
The dems will back any bullshit that is label anti-Global Warming
Romney as repeatedly said that he believes that lie
Wall Street loves the idea of Cap-N-Trage
The only thing that Romney wants more than to become president is bailing out and profiting from his Wall Street connections.
The only question is how many of the useful iddiots that will vote for him will “realized the wisdom” of Cap-N-Trade when he starts pushing it in ’13.
No doubt,you’ll be one of them.
Doesn’t this just prove your point about America being both alive and dead at the same time? Take the Republican field as a microcosm: on one hand, they profess a remarkable ideological unity on economics and (to a lesser extent) foreign policy and social policy, a testament to the conservative movement’s power – on that hand, they’re alive. On the other…well, I haven’t seen a bigger bunch of backstabbers and kneecappers since, well…the last Republican primary. Oops. The cat is dead, too.
Anyway, as to any of them becoming our nominee and our so-called “spokesman” – who cares? This is a job interview, they’re auditioning for the position of working for me (and you, and everyone on this board, and every American citizen). They’re not a spokesperson so much as a manager. Not excited about the presidential elections, guys? Well, I guarantee you there’s a congressman and maybe even a senator sweating right about now. Still not happy? Look to state office, county office, city office – hell, look at a school board!
This is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and we’re not some monolithic whole. The weak GOP field getting you down? Well, that’s our fault; they’re only a symptom of a larger problem in the culture, one you can actually fix, either by finding a candidate who you can enthusiastically support, or running for office yourself. No piece of legislation (save the Constitution and its legal amendments) is forever, no government office is permanent, and no ruling class ever survives here for long.
Basically, everyone needs to look at the long game, and be evangelical about liberty – if not for yourselves, than for your children, your friends, your neighbors…
“No piece of legislation (save the Constitution and its legal amendments) is forever, no government office is permanent, and no ruling class ever survives here for long.”
Yet, the Constitution can be applied to anything, and it’s impossible to change at this point. The Supreme Court is the de facto ruling body of America, and it’s not going to change unless the law schools are eliminated. They’re ideological toll booths a lost soul must pass through to become a lawyer, and the wrong opinions are weeded out.
Even Obama just can’t do anything. America’s current path is unstoppable until it hits a wall somewhere in the very far future.
It is hard to spin the Bain stuff as anything but leftist style attacks. There are plenty of other areas to attack Mitt. One is Romneycare. But I actually have begun to think that that particular attack on Mitt maybe can be effectively diffused.
See my short rcp comment A PRO-Mitt Point on Romneycare: http://tinyurl.com/7cl7pza
Mitt Romney is such a greed monster that even his fellow monsters find him repulsive. He stole millions from the working class while giving nothing in return. How many babies could be fed with Bain Capital’s ill-gotten lucre? The mass poverty caused by his greed is unfathonable. Nobody that greedy deserves to live,much less be President.
It his obvious his agenda is to take away whatever wealth remains in the hands of the bottom 99% and give it to people like himself. Who but a devil incarnate could support that?
For more on Romney,click here:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CompleteMonster
“Mitt Romney seems like much too nice a fellow for this line of work.”
Really? What’s better for the employees… letting an capital inefficient company wither completely away and for all employees to lose their jobs or to restructure and realign with the more efficient lines of business and save 80% of the jobs, with the potential of ultimately adding back the rest?
Is it the “nice” surgeon who refuses to remove the tumor and lets the patient die? Or is the competent surgeon who removes the tumor so that the patient may live? There’s pain in either case, the first suffers the pain of the illness and dies, the second suffers the pain of the operation and lives. The point is that there will be pain – it’s just an issue of whether people suffer for no reason.
Compare any of the Bain ventures with GM… GM is no better off today that before it was bailed-out. It’s still a bankruptcy waiting to happen because the bail-out kicked the restructuring can down the road by not fundamentally changing the way GM does business. GM has zero chance of surviving without a whole lot of additional, and unnecessary, pain. Was Obama “nice” to force the workers to live with pending doom, and the workers do know they’re doomed, or did he just take the easy way out by boldly refusing to take any leadership?
Leadership isn’t about being nice, it’s about doing what’s needed. Bain Capital represents Romney leading while RomneyCare represents Romney being “nice”. Private sector Romeny leads, public sector Romney follows by doing what’s easy. Private sector Romney created wealth, public sector Romney destroyed wealth. Private sector Romney would make a good President, public sector Romney will be a disaster.
ChrisS,
Your post is exactly to the point, thanks. Capitalism presumes that human beings have avaricious and domineering impulses, and permits them to be exercised within certain boundaries (no fraud, no watering the milk and sanding the sugar, no child labor). It gives everyone a shot — anyone who can persuade investors to put up money can take a crack at the competition. It throws up a lot of dust and spins a lot of wheels, but it is infinitely better than allowing self-perpetuating elites to rule unchallenged, GM being a case in point.
David,
Nice touch in invoking the specter of Detroit as the “Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come” if America continues on its present course.
There is actually an artsy sub-genre focused on “appreciating” and photographing the burned out ruins of Detroit (http://www.marchandmeffre.com/index.html, http://www.detroityes.com/downtown/31statler.htm ).
I lived there for several years in the 1990s and spent a fair amount of time downtown and in the neighborhoods. It’s Mad Max meets P-Funk.
Shabbat Shalom.
I used to call on firms in Detroit until all of them went out of business or were taken over by out-of-state competitors. I remember Detroit in the 1970s, when it was still a great city, and a great African-American city, thanks to the auto industry. That’s a real American tragedy.
For me, one of the most poignant memories of Detroit are the decent people trying to survive in the midst of Apocalypse-lite, frequently living in the single functional home in a burned out neighborhood (think Brush Park, just off Woodward Avenue and south of WSU, the DPD precinct actually had an armored car (with a ram to take out fortified doors in crack houses)) where a family was trying to hold it together.
I visited one such home on a winter’s day. The walls were covered with hung blankets to keep it insulated. An older lady was caring for three school age children who were actually doing homework. In a well lit corner there was a sort of shrine with an open bible and some Jesus pictures.
Sir,
Your characteriazation of capitalism is very inaccurate, and reflects a very biased narrative.
Capitalism consists of rational decision makers employing the resources available to them to produce value.
Your description of capitalism is in fact the social analysis of the effects of free human choice, and in particular one which chooses not to worry about where value comes from in the first place.
It is impossible to defend capitalism from those in favor of tyranny with the false dichotomy of avarice vs. poverty.
Your economic and moral education must be reconsidered because your line of thinking is why it’s even conceivable that Republicans are attacking each other over who is too capitalist. It is also why we are in this mess at all.
Respectfully you are no fool and reflect a very mainstream institutional line of thought. But it has been mistaken.
Using the Gymboree LBO as an example….you see the question does become once working class Americans figure out how to ask it….”How many American jobs were created”.
Call that OWS if you want…but to me as a conservative…it’s a fair question to ask of Mitt Romney…how many American jobs were created of the 100,000 he claims.
http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/10/05/how-pe-could-strike-it-rich-on-gymboree/
“A private equity owner with knowledge of overseas markets could create real value by holding Gymboree’s hand as it spreads abroad. With domestic U.S. baby apparel sales likely to be sluggish for the foreseeable future, foreign growth will need to be a key element of Gymboree’s strategy.”
Perhaps we should consider whether it is the primary purpose of an economy to create jobs. I don’t think it is. Certainly not the *primary* purpose. In fact, it is the purpose of an economy to create goods and services with as few job as are necessary to achieve the goal. Extra jobs added -especially if required in some fashion by the government or popular sentiment – amount to a redistributionist scheme, burdening companies with dead weight for the sake of some abstracted concept of equality. There is also something I would call “employment creep.” Managers love to be managing as many people as possible. Makes them feel they’re doing well, that they’re important.
The reactionary attacks on Gingrich’s criticism of Romney’s record at Bain Capital are frustrating for the lack of thinking they reflect. It is silly to suggest that Gingrich and Perry should be “ashamed” for questioning Romney’s claims on job creation. Romney job creation claims are as bogus as Obama’s “saved or created” numbers. Sure there are 90,000 people working at Staples and a bunch more at Sport’s Authority. There were probably as many, if not more, people working at the independent office supply and sporting goods stores that were put out of business by Staples, Sport’s Authority, and Bain Capital.These businesses weren’t destroyed because they were out competed. They were destroyed, and their wealth transferred to Romney and friends, because Romney and friends had access to borrowed capital.
Mr. Goldman makes a point that both the Tea Party and the Occupy people find offensive. “…anyone who had a chance to own equity with borrowed money did exceptionally well. One can argue that many of the players who got rich during the boom years simply rode the big wave…” That is just the point: a privileged few with access to were able to do exceptionally well for no other reason that they were part of the northeast financial elite.
No one objects to an investor putting his own money into a venture and reaping the profits of success and taking the losses of failure. No one objects to making needed job cuts in order to keep an enterprise viable. Anyone with sense objects to a situation where a company like Bain Capital can borrow money and make investment, and make millions even when the investment fails. That is privatization f profits and socializing the losses every bit as much as what Obama did with Solyndra. Just as it is not an attack on capitalism and free markets to point out that what Larry Flynt the pornographer does is disgusting it is legitimate to point out that profits made in this manner are also disgusting.
Get real. Of course a guy whose father was an auto company CEO and went to Harvard Business School will find it easier to break into business than the child of a truck driver who graduated from a state college. Life isn’t fair, and plenty of morons with pedigrees will get a free ride. Just how do you propose to prevent this? Make them all go to the countryside to learn from the peasants? Who do you think invests in Bain? Pension funds, mainly, including a lot of union pension funds. And the union pension funds want a Harvard pedigree for their managers, just like the Harvard Endowment.
Mr. Goldman, perhaps you could get “real” and learn to read. Nowhere did I suggest that we should try to prevent what Romney did. Nor do I bemoan the fact that as a person of privilege Romney had opportunities that others who weren’t born with the silver spoon didn’t have. I don’t have time for envy and don’t expect any system to be perfectly fair. What I did argue is that there doesn’t seem to be anything in Romney’s record to support his claim to be a job creator and that there was nothing particularly creative, or beneficial, to his destruction.
Mr. Goldman get real yourself and practice reading comprehension. I have never suggested that we need to prevent what Romney did nor lamented the fact that people such as Romney have advantages others don’t. I don’t like what Larry Flynt does but that doesn’t mean I want to do away with the first amendment. I’m simply pointing out that Romney’s job creation claims are bogus. You haven’t even attempted to defend his claim. I am also pointing out that the destruction he brought about through his access to capital wasn’t very creative and didn’t result in any net economic improvement.
Capitalism isn’t perfect – it’s just better than any other system we devised. In order to reap the benefits of that system we have to put up with the weaknesses just as we have to put up with pornographers if we want to preserve free speech. But we don’t have to buy into some myth that just because Romney was able to use his advantages to secure wealth for himself it means that his experience will be beneficial to the country. Staples isn’t the foundation of a strong economy.
The problem with your view I think is you subscribe to the liberal viewpoint known as the “pie fallacy”. You believe there is a fixed amount of wealth and a fixed amount of demand for products services. That is not the case. Let’s say you have a bunch of scrap wood lying around and you make a table out of it and sell it to someone. You’ve created wealth. If you sold that table you would get money which is a means of transfering said wealth in exchange for goods or services. But you don’t see things that way. You see this act as taking wealth away from someone else but that’s not the case. Competition does not divide up the mythical pie of wealth because it’s not of a fixed size.
The fallacy in your arguement is this: Bain did not make tables. Bain bought and sold and speculated on companies that made tables. Mitt Romney never made a table in his life, and never sold one, he only made money on other people’s companies.
Actually I don’t subscribe to the “pie fallacy” which sounds like something you made up as the notion of a fixed size pie is not a logical fallacy but an erroneous premise. Why is it that Romney defenders don’t ever actually address his record and simply recite basic capitalist principles. I am a capitalist but don’t see anything beneficial in the way Romney used the economic freedoms afforded him in our capitalist system.
“I also agree with Newt Gingrich’s sensible views on immigration against Romney’s hard line.”
How can you trust Gingrich’s “sensible” views on immigration? It will be the same patter as the last three deals – promise greater enforcement after some form of amnesty. And the greater enforcement never materializes. How about the enforcement that we were already promised BEFORE amnesty?
Same pattern with the debt. Major cuts promised at end of a 10-year-cycle for spending increases now. Except that the Congress in place 10 years from now is not bound by those cuts. They can simply vote to ignore them. Madness.
As for Romney, the repeal of Obamacare is crucial. And I think Romney will sell us out for a better table at Martha’s Vineyard.
But it’s now clear that, given the alternative choices, Romney, whatever his faults, is the best candidate.
The choices are: Romney, one of the Alternates, or Nothing. I’m torn between giving Obama another 4 years to complete his destruction of this Republic VS Romney as a placeholder to give me 4 more years to prepare for it.
Romney needs to prove he will *rollback* what Obama has done. I haven’t heard that yet. Of course, I’m in Maryland, so my vote won’t matter anyway.
The real problem with Romney as place holder is that republicans, conservatives and free markets will be blamed by Romney’s inevitable failure.
Not to mention that Romney will most likely not just hold steady, but push the growth of government via cap-n-trade and in healthcare.
The question of Romney as president is really, will the victory be worthy of the battle?
Romney has many valuable skills and qualities and will serve well as our president and chief executive. Yet, he hasn’t presented himself as a change agent that would make enough of the changes necessary to preserve our Republic and our freedoms. Perhaps he’ll be more aggressive with a Tea Party Congress behind (or ahead of) him.
I haven’t first-hand knowledge of Perry’s attacks on Romney’s work at Bain so will not automatically shame Perry for them. Perry remains my choice.
The important thing is to NOT decide the nomination so early! Three states, through South Carolina, all with non-representative populations, using methods and procedures that are too loosey-goosey, must not finish the race.
For me ANY REPUBLICAN is better than Obama that is a moot point. While I don’t “love” Romney wishing for Palin we have what we have. What will be important to me is who Romney picks as his running mate. For a while in 2008 I looked at Obama with an open mind until he picked Joe Biden. That did it for me vs. what McCain chose.
By the way Dan, what do you think of those chaps at Zero Hedge. They are an interesting read. They kind of remind me of Gary Shilling who predicted 20 of the last 6 recessions. In these days doom seems to be the word.
About the only good thing I can see about a Romney presidency is that it will give us a four year (or possibly 8 year) slowdown in our descent to prepare a good candidate. Hopefully we can hold out that long. If Obamno gets back in we are done for. With a good conservative majority congress Romney should be held in check. From day one, Romney will be looking forward to year five. You can be sure he won’t buck congress and ruin his chances for that. He seems to me to be a say anything/ do anything to get along kind so will do what congress wants. (I hope) He will of course take credit for anything good that comes out of it but I can live with that.
Very good post Mr. Goldman. Material like this is why I’m one of your fans. So, naturally, I’m now going to pick out the only thing in there I don’t like :^)
“…and I also agree with Newt Gingrich’s sensible views on immigration against Romney’s hard line.”
The only only thing wrong with “Romney’s hard line” is that he probably doesn’t really mean it.
“He rails against imaginary enemies (Federal Reserve) and is in favor of appeasing real ones (Islam, Mexican reconquistadors).” The Federal Reserve is not an imaginary adversary, to the extent that it destroys wealth and leaves the only path to wealth left either connections or massive use of leverage in the not particularly innovative (as it turns out) financial sector. And the claim that Paul wants amnesty is idiotic, he’s the only candidate talking about putting troops on our border instead of the AfPak border.
Think about it, as even David admits, why has the engine of innovation stalled? Why has Facebook for all its hype only produced a teensy fraction of the wealth of a Microsoft? Seattle is full of sixty something Microsoft millionaires, which accounts partly for its bloated housing costs. How many millionaires did Facebook or MySpace create in comparison?
And no, I don’t have a problem going toe to toe with MarcH who’s fixated on some newsletters twenty years ago whose content was mostly milder than the racist spew Frontpagemag and other PJM/Simon approved sites have cranked out for years. But the Tatler has banned me for asking Bryan Preston directly why he never bothered to criticize Paul when he worked for the Republican Party of Texas five or seven years ago. It isn’t as if Paul’s views have changed since then.
Facebook hasn’t gone public yet, so the equity stake held by early investors and employees hasn’t been valued yet. Ask that question again after the IPO.
So which side is afraid of the truth again?
And again, there’s a difference between free market investments in which the investor stands to lose their own shirt and loading companies up with debt and if you lose, only the company itself with all its employees goes under, but you never pay for leveraging up personally.
And to wrap up my participation in this thread — I did not see a measured, calm rebuttal of Paul’s positions the past three weeks at PJM. I saw hysterical, over the top and often ludicrous or false attacks (he supports open borders? Really? He wants Israel destroyed?) on a guy that the Establishment already knows will never be allowed to get even close to the GOP nomination.
Even normally cool, collected people like David joined in the hysteria, which is regrettable. To me that suggests a deep, deep insecurity and recognition whether conscious or subconscious that the Almighty Status Quo (sustained in no small part by unlimited fiat printing) in this country is crumbling. Sure maybe Zerohedge seems over the top right now but just wait. I do not think it paranoia to suggest that Homeland Security is looking for the slightest pretext to put troops on the streets, not when we have Mayors and senior city councilmen in crime-ridden cities like New Orleans calling for it.
I give you credit for cut and paste because your ludicrous description of Paul would otherwise make those numbers suspicious. Paul shares the position of Thomas Jefferson regarding military intervention, the growth of government, and the accumulation of public debt, namely that all of them are bad. Paul also understands that free trade among countries enriches them both economically and culturally. Those libertarian, or Jeffersonian, or classical liberal ideas, take your pick of names — along with Austrian economics — are what Reagan publicly regarded as the foundations of conservatism. In contrast, all other Republican candidates see trade as an adjunct to military foreign policy, all supported by the indenture of future generations to unsatisfiable federal debt: That is why they are all as willing to attack free enterprise as they are a third world country.
Ron Paul supporters never get sick and can only be killed by decapitating them. There can be/is only one.
Did Romney’s Bain Plunder Howard Hughes?
It’s possible that Romney deserves the right to create gold from straw like Rumplestilskin did but there are few who think that is possible, and requires government aid and favorable corporate bankruptcy rules to undermine American strength to create those jobs.
Romney obviously had too many tinker toys when he was a boy.
If it could be done without government aid, the banks would not have needed the bailouts, and private equity alone is insufficient to sustain a level of American capitalism that works for everyone. Playing pacman with corporates is no way to run a country, but does he need to try it to recognize the truth, or is it that he just doesn’t care about the American people, and they are all dogs upon his roof along for the journey?